Sure, but France and Russia and whoever else aren’t threatening civilian lives or fracturing international diplomacy with their machinations.
France already shattered the myth of international diplomacy by saying they would veto any resolution that required Iraq to comply. The U.S. has made a hash of diplomacy, to be sure, but let’s not forget to place the responsiblity with all the parties that share it.
I’m curious as to which course of action would cause more civilian deaths. A war, or leaving Saddam to his business another 6 to 12 months.
Fleischer’s one of those “Q. How do you know when he’s lying? A. His lips are moving” sort of guys.
And Weirddave, if it weren’t for oil, we’d care about the Middle East almost as much as we care about central Africa. If it weren’t for oil, we’d have let Saddam take Kuwait, except he wouldn’t have bothered in the first place. If it weren’t for oil, we wouldn’t have stationed troops in Saudi Arabia for the past dozen years. And if we hadn’t done that, 9/11 would just be another day. And if 9/11 had just been another day, we wouldn’t be trying to connect Saddam to terrorists. If it weren’t for oil, there wouldn’t be any Saudi oil money to finance the terrorists that wouldn’t exist anyway. And on it goes. What part of all this doesn’t have anything to do with oil, other than the Bush administration’s bullshit that we’re over there because our hearts bleed for the sufferings of the Iraqi people, alone out of all the nations ground under the heels of dictators in this world?
This theory has always confused me. Do they think Bush and his “henchmen” are going rush in there, once we’ve gotten rid of Saddam, and seize their oil wells? As far as I know we already “have” their oil; through the oil for food program, their oil is on the world market just like that of any other exporting country, for sale at the world price. Even if we did seize the oil fields, which I don’t for one second imagine we will, it’s not like we could control the world price. Or is it?
And we did attack the perpetrators of the 9-11 attack when we kicked the Taliban out.
To the OP, the UN is marginalized because it is of marginal worth and effectiveness. It does precious little to improve the lot of people forced to live under oppressive regimes, but seems to be dedicated to treating dictators with kid gloves in the name of noninterventionism and national sovereignty. Reluctance to act is understandable in some situations; I would certainly not jump to attack China, for example, and during the Cold War there were potentially terrifying geopolitical consequences to things we might conceivably have done by way of intervention.
But look at the record since 1990. Ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. Brutal, state sponsored mass murder in Rwanda. The Taliban in Afghanistan, subjecting their female population to virtual slavery. And the U.N. did what? Not a fucking thing. If 9-11 hadn’t happened, arousing the ire of America and its leaders, the Taliban would be there today, whipping women for leaving the house unescorted, or … for trying to work in order to have money to survive. And it wasn’t just the way they treated women. I think all of their moral strictures are appalling, from the banning of all entertainment to the banning of kites and chess. There is no way you can justify that to me in the name of culture or national sovereignty.
To be fair, I realize that the situation is not completely cut and dried. For example, some regions of Afghanistan are ruled by local warlords in a Taliban like manner. But there’s no denying that the situation is better now than what it was. As for this war, I’ve tried and tried to decide but I’m ambivalent. As suggested above, I think the UN should use force to topple dictatorial regimes where it’s feasible. After Saddam is gone, it seems that the people will at least have a chance of self determination. The downside is that civilians will be killed, and I’m at a loss to find any direct connection between Saddam and the attacks on America. But if Saddam is truly oppressing his people as we hear, how can the U.N. just stand by?
Well, to be fair to Fleischer, I guess he does have a redeeming quality: at least he doesn’t wear those asinine bowties his predecessor did.
RT, play fair. My claim is and has been that people who say that “It’s all about the oil” are fools. Certainly, oil does factor into it, how could it not? However, can you honestly tell me that you believe, absent 9-11, absent repeated human rights abuses, absent flouting of U.N regulations…absent all of these things, can you truthfully say that we would be poised to attack Iraq?
The biggest flaw in the “war for oil” theory is that Sadaam’s likely reaction to an attack is going to be to burn the oil fields. Reports are that explosives are in place, and even desperation jumps by U.S. special forces would have a poor chance of disarming all of the charges before they could be detonated. Scorched earth is a policy that goes back generations, and the urge to deny the victor the spoils is universal, I think. Given the likelyhood of all of that, AND the 3-5 years and upwards of 20 billion dollars that it will take to get the Iraqi oil fields back into production, saying that Bush wants to attack Iraq to hand it over to his Texas oil friends is not just dumb, it borders on certifiable insanity.
**
“absent 9-11” - sorry - has there been credible evidence shown that actually links Iraq to 9-11 (by credible evidence, I’d be looking for something that links it closer than, say, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.)
“absent repeated human rights abuses” - of course there’s quite a few other places on earth that has these, tell me again who we’re invading?
“absent flouting of UN regulations” - ditto .
the problem w/ these other alternatives is things is that several of our allies can be linked up with them (the human rights abuses may be a stretch), so it can be (IMHO) successfully argued that if these other issues were of such significance to us that we’d flout commonly held traditional thoughts such as “it’s not ok to invade other countries”, then why are we not threatening invasion of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan, China, etc etc etc?
See, again, you misread what I said. I said that these things provide the reasons that we’re going to war. You may not think they are good reasons, that is your right. Reread what I actually wrote, however, and answer the question: If 9/11 never happened, if Sadaam had peacefully disarmed, if he had stopped human rights abuses…would we be poised to attack? If you say yes, please provide your reasoning.
but dave - you may as well ask ‘if Bush hadn’t been elected, would we be poised to attack’?
in other words, unless you’re projecting some level of causality, some link between event A and event B, then why list them at all?
had Enron scandal not happened, would we be poised to attack? Had Noelle Bush not gone into rehab, would we be poised to attack? etc etc.
either the items are linked (which implies some level of connection, some level of ‘this is why’,) or they’re unrelated, in which case, why bother listing them.
So, you’re saying that none of those 3 things have anything to do with our current stance in Iraq? Pray tell, what does, then?
dave puhleeze. You said ‘but for these events’ we wouldn’t be going to war, in your attempt to deflect attention away from the oil. I’m suggesting right back atchya that ‘those events’ if they were significant to us, would lead us to attack other places than Iraq. hell, N Korea is posing a much more direct threat to our nations safety presently, but we’re not threatening invasion there.
you need to support your contention that ‘but for these events’ (without apparently admitting that they have no specific link to Iraq), we wouldn’t be going to war.
others linked to evidence suggesting that the oil was, if not the sole reason, a significant part of it, rather than these other issues. time for you to do the same.
Whaddaya mean, play fair?!
Hey man, this is the Pit!!
(Just kidding. :))
But it’s one you need to defend, rather than simply say, “Taken your lithium?”
I don’t think the human rights abuses matter diddly-squat in getting us here. Pretty much any dictator’s gonna have human-rights abuses in his resume; that’s how you stay a dictator.
I think flouting the UN resolutions helped, but I’m getting more convinced that this bunch wanted to go after Saddam for a combination of reasons that they just plain aren’t going to be honest and open about. And that if there had been no such resolutions, they’d still be trying to do what they’re doing.
Now 9/11…absolutely. Bush wasn’t even interested in foreign policy before 9/11. Now the little twerp thinks he has the wisdom of the ages. Amazing what a year and a half can do for you.
The problem is, that’s just one of the “this is all about oil” lines of reasoning. And even there, as tomndebb mentioned in another thread, Cheney’s old company has been contacted by the gummint about the contract for putting out the fires of which you speak. Under your scenario, that’s gonna be a BIG contract.
But that’s not the only way it could be all about oil. For me, the most straightforward ‘all about oil’ argument is that Saudi Arabia could have an Islamic revolution at any time, and when it does, we’d better have another country with deep reserves ready to take up some of the slack if the new Arabian rulers decide to cut back production. And relative to that scenario, $20 billion is chump change.
So yeah, I think this war really could be “all about oil,” depending on how one defines that.
What it really is all about, who knows? It may be ‘about’ different things in the minds of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, and Wolfowitz. But if they’re all in agreement on going to war, those differences don’t really matter, from their perspective.
What I don’t buy is the Administration’s line that this is about either the UN resolutions or the awful things being done to the citizens of Iraq. If their lives are better after the war, then that is good. But Bush wouldn’t cross the street to save these people if there wasn’t something else he wanted over there.
To play devil’s advocate for a moment, I’ll point out that this is a good reason to invade, hoping that Saddam blows up the wells (and not sending in your Special Forces too quickly…). Why? Who rebuilt Iraq last time?
That’s right: Dick Cheney’s company, Haliburton.
Why should I do that? YOU don’t even do that:
By your own admission ( “quite a few other places on earth”- other means that they exist in Iraq too ) these conditions exist in Iraq. So. Tell me we’d be there without them.
All Bush had to do to achieve that was recognize SH as “reformed” and press for the repeal of sanctions. The EU would have fallen all overthemselves to do so, and we’d have our “alternate source”. War is a poor second in ease and cost to this.
You honestly think that Shrub’s foreign policy is to turn the U.S. into an imperialistic world power, and that after the war Iraq is going to be know as “American Arabia” or something? I despise the man and bemoan how he’s handled this entire situation, but I don’t find that credable at all.
And why don’t you? Have you read this (my emphases):
Many of these people are the mainstay of the current administration, or very close to it. Benevolent as this may appear to you, I see nothing in this statement of principles to suggest that policy is anything but imperialistic.
Absolutely
There was a detailed expose aired on one of our most respected current affairs programs 2 weeks ago about this.
It is very scary stuff, and I wonder how many Americans are aware of what has been and is still going on.
Judging by Weirddave’s irrational responses (which are IMO analogous to running around screaming “I say it’s not about oil and I don’t wanna hear you tell me otherwise!”), not nearly enough.
Huh. If you’re going to quote me for the purpose of random insults, rjung, at least quote me accurately, hmm? I said “people who say it’s only about oil are fools.” You seem to happily don that mantle, so if the shoe fits…
Shame on you. As Americans, it is our DUTY to question every step (or mis-step) our government makes. It’s not a matter of loving our country, it’s a matter of following the very attitudes that make this country what it is. Questioning someone’s patriotism for disagreeing with Washington is downright reprehensible.
Although not as zealously, I agree with you on the validity of this war, but it is embarrassing to express concurrence when this kind of idiocy is attached.
Use your head and keep your short-sighted, jingoistic views to yourself. Better yet, review your American history and learn for yourself that such statements are downright wrong.
And while you’re at it, learn the proper use of punctuation.